Do you pay taxes to Japan?
Their overall tax rate is 55% of personal income.
American overall tax rate is 37% of personal income.
Granted this is a real rough number, as Japan taxes
are like American "progressive and confusing.

Are you willing to give Democrats control of your
medical system?
That is all that will get hired for Administrative positions.
We just watched what Democrat administrators
have done to the American economy and the health
system.
I'll take a pass.

We don't pay taxes in Japan as we don't live there now.

When comparing tax rates the number alone can't tell the whole story, what you get for that also matters. I checked and I found that the top income tax rate was 45% for japan with the marginal rate going up to 50%. So they pay up to an extra 10-15% in income taxes than we do but they get most of their health care provided. So to fair, we would need to include our health care costs as a percentage of our income . Therefore though we may pay a lower income tax rate we also pay for an expense elsewhere that they don't.

I am not ready to give up my health care fully but I have to acknowledge there are a number of advantages to a socialized health care system. There are also a number of disadvantages too. I am not a medical provider or a political and I am in no real position to effect direct change in the system but I think there are steps we as a country could take towards socialized health care for some of the benefits while retaining some of the benefits of our system. I don't want full blown government health care but I also know that our system has a lot of problems too.

Sounds like what the founding fathers had intended.

Do you think we should do away with a standing military?

Do you think we should do away with a standing military?

The Founding Fathers were not in favor for a standing military because they were creating a Republic, not another British-like Empire that America has become today.  In fact, certain 2nd Amendment scholars reiterate the fact that the reason the populace were allowed to have similar type of arms to that of the military was because the militia would become the military in times of war and disbanded, once the war ended.  Hence, there would be no need for a standing military.  Standing armies is a telling sign of the road to empire and the Founding Fathers would be appalled to see what they fought against, their nation has become.  In fact, I would offer that they would probably be the people today, who call for another revolution to end the American empire and create another Republic.

The Founding Fathers were not in favor for a standing military because they were creating a Republic, not another British-like Empire that America has become today.  In fact, certain 2nd Amendment scholars reiterate the fact that the reason the populace were allowed to have similar type of arms to that of the military was because the militia would become the military in times of war and disbanded, once the war ended.  Hence, there would be no need for a standing military.  Standing armies is a telling sign of the road to empire and the Founding Fathers would be appalled to see what they fought against, their nation has become.  In fact, I would offer that they would probably be the people today, who call for another revolution to end the American empire and create another Republic.

But then WWI happened.

Then WWII happened.

It doesn't make sense to rely on Militia with infantry weapons (pistols, rifles and shotguns) to protect against tanks, planes with large bombs, Naval vessels carrying aircraft, etc.

But then WWI happened.

You mean the war that the US had no business getting involved.

Then WWII happened.

Yes, the war the American people wanted no part, but were forced into it by Roosevelt provoking Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.

It doesn't make sense to rely on Militia with infantry weapons (pistols, rifles and shotguns) to protect against tanks, planes with large bombs, Naval vessels carrying aircraft, etc.

First of all, you are basing your premise on 20th century warfare.  In the modern era of nuclear weapons, the days of conventional military invasion is a thing of the past, especially that of the US, which could utterly destroy any nation that foolishly thinks it can breach America's borders.  The only thing that can breach America's borders in the 21st century are the drug cartels and illegal immigrants, which the greatest military on Earth seems impotent to stop.

Second, the only reason for the US to have the standing military that it has is to garrison the planet to maintain its imperial order, which the Founding Fathers would be totally against, if they were alive today.

Third, from a cost perspective, America can no longer financially maintain its over bloated military machine.  If the current pandemic has taught the militaries of the World anything is that a short-term tactical biological weaponry is the way to go to neutralize America's imperial garrisons and hamper its blue-water armadas on the planet.  Hence, the US military, outside of its own nuclear and conventional ballistic missiles, is not cost-effective and actually a liability should those foreign bases are cut off due to some weaponized pathogen.

In the end, those in America who call for the preservation of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the end of the imperial military are today's ideological prodigy of America's Founding Fathers, who relentlessly strive for the end of the US empire and the return of the American Republic.

Playing poker without the full deck. . .

I wouldn't say all of the American people wanted no part in WWII.  I know someone in this thread would pontificate that that would be fact. . . From what I could tell from history of WWII, it was inevitable for the US to get involved as well as many portions/segments of the US that was ready to get involved. 

Playing poker without the full deck. . .

I wouldn't say all of the American people wanted no part in WWII.  I know someone in this thread would pontificate that that would be fact. . . From what I could tell from history of WWII, it was inevitable for the US to get involved as well as many portions/segments of the US that was ready to get involved.

Well, if you carry a royal flush on your hands, explain why do you think from your analysis of history, what Americans and why was inevitable for the US to get involved in WWII?

Historically, the American people were isolationists that did not want or be bothered by anybody.  For the imperialists in the US, that's another story.

Well, if you carry a royal flush on your hands, explain why do you think from your analysis of history, what Americans and why was inevitable for the US to get involved in WWII?

Historically, the American people were isolationists that did not want or be bothered by anybody.  For the imperialists in the US, that's another story.

Agreed that Americans are isolationists.
I just want to be left alone, even from people
called Democrats that claim to be Americans.
You call them "Imperialists",
I call them Democrats.
However,  reality is, Things happen in minutes
today.  In the future it will be seconds.

The American constitution only authorized
a "Standing" Navy.
They expected armed citizens to stand up and
serve when needed.
That is you and me.

Today we have much more than the Navy( and Marines),

In the Game of Chess your only chance of winning is to
control the center of the board.
You don't do that by isolation.

Agreed that Americans are isolationists.
I just want to be left alone, even from people
called Democrats that claim to be Americans.
You call them "Imperialists",
I call them Democrats.
However,  reality is, Things happen in minutes
today.  In the future it will be seconds.

The American constitution only authorized
a "Standing" Navy.
They expected armed citizens to stand up and
serve when needed.
That is you and me.

Today we have much more than the Navy( and Marines),

In the Game of Chess your only chance of winning is to
control the center of the board.
You don't do that by isolation.

Maybe he'd rather we go back to the draft and do away with the all-volunteer force we have today?

True, things are always changing in the way we conduct warfare, but there still has to be people training to push the buttons and plan the missions...

But he has zero military experience.  Why he continues to insist on lecturing those of use with military backgrounds on national defense strategy and tactics is beyond me.

You mean the war that the US had no business getting involved.



Yes, the war the American people wanted no part, but were forced into it by Roosevelt provoking Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.



First of all, you are basing your premise on 20th century warfare.  In the modern era of nuclear weapons, the days of conventional military invasion is a thing of the past, especially that of the US, which could utterly destroy any nation that foolishly thinks it can breach America's borders.  The only thing that can breach America's borders in the 21st century are the drug cartels and illegal immigrants, which the greatest military on Earth seems impotent to stop.

Second, the only reason for the US to have the standing military that it has is to garrison the planet to maintain its imperial order, which the Founding Fathers would be totally against, if they were alive today.

Third, from a cost perspective, America can no longer financially maintain its over bloated military machine.  If the current pandemic has taught the militaries of the World anything is that a short-term tactical biological weaponry is the way to go to neutralize America's imperial garrisons and hamper its blue-water armadas on the planet.  Hence, the US military, outside of its own nuclear and conventional ballistic missiles, is not cost-effective and actually a liability should those foreign bases are cut off due to some weaponized pathogen.

In the end, those in America who call for the preservation of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the end of the imperial military are today's ideological prodigy of America's Founding Fathers, who relentlessly strive for the end of the US empire and the return of the American Republic.

good thing we have the land based icbms here...

I doubt the forefathers could predict the existence of nuclear weapons capable of destroying millions of people and hundreds of thousands of homes from orbit.  Then there are cruise missiles with tactical nukes and conventional warheads, mines, laser-guided munitions, flame throwers, and so on.

Falling back on what the "Founding Fathers would be totally against" is no argument, since they were living in times without the faintest idea of the threats we face today.  That includes terrorists flying commercial airliners into two 110-story tall buildings and into what was once the world's largest building -- the Pentagon.

What we have to defend against is not based on anything the US did to "provoke" anyone.  Regardless of motivations, there is always someone interested in challenging the biggest kid on the block for no good reason other than to improve their own standing.

Well, if you carry a royal flush on your hands, explain why do you think from your analysis of history, what Americans and why was inevitable for the US to get involved in WWII?

Historically, the American people were isolationists that did not want or be bothered by anybody.  For the imperialists in the US, that's another story.

Think you're mixing up Star Wars saga with history. . .

good thing we have the land based icbms here...

Shh.  Secret. . . don't share the "intel"

Think you're mixing up Star Wars saga with history. . .

AT ATs are the coolest

Maybe he'd rather we go back to the draft and do away with the all-volunteer force we have today?

True, things are always changing in the way we conduct warfare, but there still has to be people training to push the buttons and plan the missions...

But he has zero military experience.  Why he continues to insist on lecturing those of use with military backgrounds on national defense strategy and tactics is beyond me.

I enlisted at the very end
of the Vietnam war.
Don't ask why,
Juvenile records are sealed.
I was 17.
The most useless guys I dealt with were
Draftees.
All my family members that went into the military
were professional and dedicated.
One thing we were all taught,
Do NOT do anything that violates
your conscious or values.
Take the USMJ hit if you have to.
We are not SS soldiers shooting naked woman
and kid in a field.
I'd attach that photo, but I think not.
unless asked.
Anti-military guys irritate me,
I despise cops,
but Military is ethical
honorable people.

Don't believe me?
Cops murder people all the time,
no problem.
A US Marine urinates
on a dead Moslem enemy
combatant, and needs a Presidential
pardon.
Y'all figure it out.

Shh.  Secret. . . don't share the "intel"

Beg to differ.
I been at ground launch ICBM sites,
They don't have them here in Hawaii.

Beg to differ.
I been at ground launch ICBM sites,
They don't have them here in Hawaii.

That's because Hawaii is not a continent and therefor cannot launch an ICBM. 

Maybe he'd rather we go back to the draft and do away with the all-volunteer force we have today?

True, things are always changing in the way we conduct warfare, but there still has to be people training to push the buttons and plan the missions...

But he has zero military experience.  Why he continues to insist on lecturing those of use with military backgrounds on national defense strategy and tactics is beyond me.

Your opinion.

What makes you think serving in the military automatically gives you a greater knowledge of national defense strategy and or tactics?

Oh wait, let me guess, you were part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when you served and part of the staff that advised the President on national defense strategy.

I doubt the forefathers could predict the existence of nuclear weapons capable of destroying millions of people and hundreds of thousands of homes from orbit.  Then there are cruise missiles with tactical nukes and conventional warheads, mines, laser-guided munitions, flame throwers, and so on.

That is irrelevant.

The Founding Fathers knew all too well what the purpose was for standing armies and navies in the British Empire: to police their empire that is no different for America today.  If missile are your concern, build more missiles and lay off the global garrisons.

Falling back on what the "Founding Fathers would be totally against" is no argument, since they were living in times without the faintest idea of the threats we face today.  That includes terrorists flying commercial airliners into two 110-story tall buildings and into what was once the world's largest building -- the Pentagon.

What we have to defend against is not based on anything the US did to "provoke" anyone. 

You make it sound that America has been innocent in the affairs of the Middle East and that they have never done anything to provoke the people of that region.  America has been messing around and participating in illegal overthrows of governments in that region for decades, which has resulted in countless numbers of Muslim dead as a result.  In fact, according to Chalmers Johnson's national bestseller, "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire", the attacks on 9/11 should not have been a surprise.